Occupier’s Liability Flashcards
what is Occupier’s Liability?
anyone who occupies land has a responsibility for the safety of any visitors. But there is a hierarchy of rights:
Contractors (such as hotel guests)
Invitees (such as customers in a shop)
Licensees (such as a friend invited to your home)
Uninvited (trespassers)
occupier’s liability legislation
The Occupiers Liability Act 1957: there is statutory duty upon the occupier towards lawful visitors from dangers due to the state of the premises, or things done or omitted to be done on the premises.
occupier’s liability requirements
Occupier – who is an occupier?
Lawful visitors – who does this apply to?
Premises – what counts as premises?
State of premises – what does this cover?
what is an occupier?
defendants of ‘occupier’s liability’ must be occupiers of the premises (may also be the owner).
Wheat v Lacon & Co (occupiers)
facts: C (a tenant) fell down a dark staircase in a pub owned by Lacon & Co. and died because the handrail didn’t cover the full length of the stairs.
principle: An occupier is responsible for premises’ safety for lawful visitors, even without exclusive control, and there can be multiple occupiers.
Harris v Birkenhead Corporation (occupiers)
facts: Julie Harris, 4, entered an unsecured derelict house from a play park, fell from a window, sustaining serious injury, despite a compulsory purchase order by the council.
held: The Council had the right to secure the property and was liable as an occupier, even without physical occupation.
premises requirement
1957 Act: premises includes any ‘fixed or moveable structure, including any vessel, vehicle or aircraft’.
eg.
A ship in a dry dock
A vehicle
A lift
A ladder
Revill v Newbery (premises)
facts:
lawful visitors requirement
lawful visitors include:
Contractors (hotel guests)
Invitees (customers in a shop)
Licensees (a friend invited to your home)
Statutory right (someone taking a meter reading, a police officer with a warrant)
are there different levels of duty of care required for different visitors?
yes
An adult is owed the common duty of care under OLA 1957:
the occupier does not have to make the adult visitor completely safe, just do what is reasonable.
Laverton v Kipasha Takeaway Supreme
facts: Plaintiff slipped on a wet floor in a takeaway shop despite a partly obscured wet floor sign, raising questions about the occupier’s duty to ensure visitor safety.
held: The shop’s precautions, like mopping the floor and displaying a partially obscured wet floor sign, cleared the occupier of liability for the plaintiff’s injuries.
Dean and Chapter of Rochester Cathedral v Debell
facts: Debell slipped on a wet floor in a shop, where a wet floor sign was partly obscured. The key issue was whether the occupier took reasonable safety measures.
held: not liable for Debell’s injuries due to the shop’s reasonable precautions, despite a partially obscured wet floor sign.
level of safety needed to protect children
OLA 1957: an additional duty is owed to child visitors, occupiers must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults.
how careful a child is depends on age, a 4 year old would be much less careful than a 14 year old. this means the standard of care is subjective- it depends on the particular child and their age.
Glasglow Corporation v Taylor (should occupiers consider dangers that might attract children?)
facts: Taylor fell into an uncovered hole on a sidewalk left by Glasgow Corporation.
held: the Corporation was liable for Taylor’s injuries due to the uncovered hole on the sidewalk. they hadn’t taken sufficient precautions to prevent accidents.
Phillips v Rochester Corporation (when both an occupier and a parent are present, who is liable?)
facts: 5 year old fell down a trench on council land
held: the occupier is entitled to expect that parents shouldnt allow their young children to go to potentially unsafe places.
principle: the court places the onus on the parent to safeguard their children.
Jolley v London Borough of Sutton (foreseeability of harm)
facts: a boy was injured while attempting to repair a dilapidated boat found on council-owned land.
held: the council was liable for the boy’s injuries as they failed to remove or warn about the dangerous condition of the dilapidated boat found on their land.
trespassers (can only claim for personal injury, not damage to their property)
OLA 1984:
principle: standard of care here is objective, depends on case and circumstance to determine what the occupier is required to do to make the land safe.
the greater the degree of risk, the more precautions the occupier should take.
Ratcliff v McConnel
facts: Ratcliff fell through a skylight while working on McConnell’s building.
held: McConnell was liable for Ratcliff’s injuries as they failed to provide adequate safety measures for workers on the roof, leading to the accident.
Donoghue v Folkestone Properties
facts: Donoghue was injured falling through a trapdoor on Folkestone’s property, raising the question of their duty to maintain the premises safely.
held: Folkestone Properties was liable for Donoghue’s injuries due to their failure to maintain safe premises, breaching their duty of care towards her.
Tomlinson v Congleton Borough
facts: Tomlinson was injured diving into a shallow lake in the Borough’s park, raising the issue of warning adequacy.
held: Congleton Borough weren’t liable for his injuries as they’d adequately warned about the dangers of swimming in the lake.
Higgs v Foster
facts: Higgs was injured falling into an uncovered manhole on Foster’s property, questioning Foster’s duty to maintain safety.
held: Foster was liable for Higgs’ injuries as they failed to maintain safety by leaving the manhole uncovered on their property.
Rhind v Astbury Water Park
facts: Rhind was injured diving into a lake at Astbury Water Park, which had warning signs against diving, raising the issue of warning adequacy.
held: Astbury Water Park wasnt liable for Rhind’s injuries as they had sufficiently warned about diving risks.
Keown v Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust
facts: Keown experienced surgery-related complications at the Trust, raising concerns about the adequacy of care provided.
held: Coventry Healthcare NHS Trust was liable for Keown’s complications, as they failed to provide adequate care during and after the surgery.
Baldaccino v West Wittering
facts: Baldaccino sued after injury on water slide.
held: Court ruled in favour of council due to risk assumption.
principle: Risk assumption means knowingly accepting the dangers of an activity and agreeing to bear any resulting harm.
defences in occupiers liability
warning notice (written or verbal) is a complete defence for an occupier’s liability claim.
warning notice
a warning is ineffective unless ‘in all circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe’. whether a warning does this or not is decided on a case by case basis.
Rae v Marrs
facts: tenant, Rae, withheld rent because the landlord neglected property maintenance.
held: court affirmed Rae’s right to do so
principle: tenants have the right to withhold rent if landlords fail to fulfill their obligations regarding property maintenance.
Staples v West Dorset District Council
facts: Staples leased a property from West Dorset District Council, which had defects. After the council failed to fix them, Staples did the repairs himself and asked for reimbursement.
held: court ruled in favor of Staples, he was entitled to reimbursement due to the council’s neglect in maintaining the property.
UCTA 1997 on death
business occupiers cannot exclude liability for death caused by negligence.
exclusion clauses
occupiers can ‘restrict, modify or exclude’ their duty of care in a warning (eg. ‘enter at your own risk, we take no responsibility)
